Clouds do not
normally form in the stratosphere due to its extreme dryness. During winter at high latitudes, however,
stratospheric temperature sometimes becomes low enough to promote
formation of clouds.

Called "Mother of Pearl" by
Scandinavians due to their iridescent appearance, these clouds are
composed of mixtures of naturally occurring water and nitric acid.

Chemical reactions that occur on the surface of these clouds result in a
remarkable transformation of stratospheric composition.

Chlorine
that is supplied to the stratosphere mainly from industrial sources is
converted from relatively unreactive forms to other forms that are highly
reactive with ozone, leading to substantial ozone depletion.

[ANOTHER EXPLANATION AND "THEORY" FROM HARVARD: Generally, the top of the troposphere is too cold to allow water vapor to
enter the stratosphere. Clouds typically rise in the troposphere due to convection, but at a
certain point, the atmosphere becomes too cold for the clouds to rise anymore because all
of the water vapor in them precipitates. This point usually occurs by the top of the
troposphere, so very little water vapor enters the stratosphere.]

It is a
great irony that these beautiful clouds participate in a chain of events
that results in the depletion of stratospheric ozone by man-made chlorine.

The most beautiful clouds of all were once only commonly visible to
those at the highest latitudes, such as Mawson station, in Antarctica.

Now, across much of Britain, we too can watch the legacy of our troubled
relationship with the atmosphere played out in glorious, mesmerising
Technicolor.

Though nacreous clouds are officially known as "polar stratospheric
clouds", they are now common over Scotland, and have been observed as
far south as the Midlands.

Lower average winter temperatures in the upper atmosphere might explain
why nacreous clouds seem to be appearing with increased frequency and
distribution.

More nacreous clouds appear during colder winters, which lead to a
greater subsequent depletion of ozone. The general increase in
observations of these clouds is considered by some scientists as linked
to man's contribution to global warming.

Since they form much higher than common clouds - at altitudes of between
12 and 15 miles - nacreous clouds are most apparent around sunrise and
sunset when their colours stand out against the darkened sky. The
stratosphere is extremely dry, compared with the cloud-filled lower
atmosphere, so the air needs to be very cold indeed for any ice crystals
to be able to form there.Nacreous clouds only appear when stratospheric temperatures are below
-83C. This happens more frequently during winter in the Antarctic than
the Arctic.

This is why this type of cloud is more commonly observed in
the southern hemisphere. It is also why the ozone layer is so much more
depleted over the south pole, compared with the north pole.

Besides causing beautiful opalescent colours, nacreous clouds' tiny
ice crystals also act to encourage chemical reactions between ozone and
the chlorine and bromine that we have introduced into the atmosphere by
our use of substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in aerosols and
fridge mechanisms.

Without the presence of stratospheric clouds,
reactions leading to the destruction of the ozone layer are negligible.
The nacreous cloud's ice particles behave as nuclei on to which the
ozone breakdown can take place.

THE U.K. WAS STARTLED THE FIRST WEEK IN FEBRUARY BY SO MANY OF THESE CLOUDS APPEARING IN THEIR SKIES. WHOEVER WROTE THAT ARTICLE CALLED THESE CLOUDS "HARMLESS"...SAID IT WAS A "RARE TREAT" TO SEE THEM....JOURNALISM ISN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE.

The W7-X is a stellarator, a device that uses twisted magnetic coils to
confine the plasma that fuels fusion reactions in a three-dimensional
and steady-state magnetic field.

It is a departure from the more common
fusion device used in fusion experiments, a donut-shaped device called a
"tokamak" such as that used at PPPL.

A REALLY BIG DEAL?

Scientists and dignitaries from around the world watched as Merkel
pushed the button to create a hydrogen plasma that lasted a quarter of a
second. But that was long enough to begin heating the plasma to 80
million degrees Celsius. By 2020, the W7-X is designed to produce a
plasma that lasts up to 30 minutes and would demonstrate that
stellarators could be a model for the fusion power plants of the
future.

Merkel acknowledged that there are "huge scientific challenges" and
costs associated with developing fusion energy, but she said the
possibility of developing fusion energy as a source of generating
electric energy is worth the investment.
"Rising energy demands and the vision of an almost inexhaustible
energy source are convincing arguments for investing in fusion," Merkel
said.

"The W7-X is a major step for fusion research. Princeton and the whole
U.S. team are absolutely thrilled," Smith said to Merkel in German. "We
are so pleased to be involved in this exceptional event.

"The success of W7-X shows that the daunting challenges facing stellarators have been solved."
The hydrogen plasma is "a step on the path to making the device
perform as planned," said David Gates, a PPPL physicist and stellarator
physics lead, who was on hand at W7-X for the first test plasma and
watched a live stream of the first hydrogen plasma in the PPPL
auditorium. "From a plasma physicist's point of view, this next phase of
research is an important milestone."

PPPL leads the U.S. collaboration with W7-X scientists, which is
funded by $4 million annually from the Department of Energy's Office of
Science. PPPL scientists and technicians built some key components of
the machine, which took some 20 years and 1 billion euro to build.

PPPL researchers designed and delivered the five massive 2,400-pound
trim coils that fine-tune the shape of plasma in fusion experiments.
Physicists also designed and built an X-ray spectrometer for measuring
the plasma temperature. A current project is the design and construction
of divertor scraper units that intercept heat from the plasma to
protect divertor targets from damage.

Collaborators include researchers from Los Alamos and Oak Ridge
National Laboratories, as well as researchers and students from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Wisconsin,
Auburn University, and Xantho Technologies, LLC.
"The arrival of W7-X on the scene creates sort of a buzz about
stellarators," Neilson said. "I think in the U.S., the arrival of such
an advanced machine, which is competitive with anything that's out there
in terms of capabilities, is just bound to shift the conversation about
stellarators."

PPPL has taken a different approach to stellarators with its
quasi-axisymmetric stellarator or QUASAR, which was not completed. With
W7-X now operating, it could also lead the U.S. to reconsider
stellarators, Neilson said.

"For 10 years, the focus is going to be on W7-X itself," he said,
"but it does create an atmosphere in which it's reasonable to ask, 'What
about us?'"

PPPL, on Princeton University's Forrestal Campus in Plainsboro, New
Jersey, is devoted to creating new knowledge about the physics of
plasmas — ultra-hot, charged gases — and to developing practical
solutions for the creation of fusion energy. Results of PPPL research
have ranged from a portable nuclear materials detector for
anti-terrorist use to universally employed computer codes for analyzing
and predicting the outcome of fusion experiments.

The laboratory is
managed by the University for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science,
which is the largest single supporter of basic research in the physical
sciences in the United States.

GIVEN THE "CAST", THIS MAY NOT BE THE JOYOUS HAPPENING WE'RE TOLD IT IS.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT "CLIMATE CHANGE", BUT ABOUT FACTS AND ABOUT WHY THIS IS HAPPENING AS IT IS.

IT'S ABOUT REPORTS FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE SEEING THIS HAPPEN, INCLUDING INDIGENOUS TRIBES WHO HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO LISTEN TO THEM FOR DECADES NOW.

SO TRY, JUST TRY, PLEASE, TO READ AND WONDER WITH ME WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING "OUT THERE" THAT IS FORCING SPECIES TO MOVE THEIR HABITAT, CHANGE THEIR MIGRATORY HABITS, ETC, WHEN IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A 1 DEGREE CHANGE IN WATER TEMPERATURE SHOULD CAUSE SO MANY TO BE ON THE MOVE.

Professor Camille Parmesan from Plymouth University in the UK said
around the world animals and plants were moving towards the Earth’s
poles, and it is happening faster than scientists had originally
predicted.

“For the species that we have really good data on, where they’ve lived
historically over the past 100 years, we’re seeing about half of those
have actually moved where they live, which is an astonishing number
given we’ve only had one degree centigrade warming,” she said.

The East
Australian Current has moved 350 kilometres further south in the past 60
years. Tasmania’s east coast is a global hotspot for marine species
that are moving south. One of them is the long-spined sea urchin.
Associate Professor Gretta Pecl from the University of Tasmania’s
Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies said the species was becoming
a pest.Professor Parmesan said the conference was not just about plants and
animals having to move, humans also needed to adapt to climate change.
“A lot of people want to know why should they care about a butterfly
moving from the US to Canada, and my point is that these are indicator
species,” she said. “What we’re seeing is that 1 degree centigrade
warming is having a massive effect on wild plants and animals."WHILE MANY WANT TO BLAME THIS ON THE WORN-OUT THEORY THAT HUMANS ARE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE, OTHERS REJECT THAT IDEA.

WHY HAVE OCEAN CURRENTS MOVED TOWARD THE POLES?HOW CAN HUMANS AFFECT THAT?

[Marine life] is on the move towards the poles at a rate of about seven kilometres
a year. Fish and other marine creatures are seeking cooler habitat much
faster than terrestrial life, according to an international study
published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

In
Australia, this re-shaping of the marine ecosystem will have significant
repercussions for people such as fishers, according to CSIRO marine
ecologist and study leader Elvira Poloczanska.

[THE INDIGENOUS TRIBES IN THE ARCTIC CIRCLE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR A LONG TIME! SOME JUST CAN'T SUSTAIN THEIR LIVELIHOOD ANY LONGER BECAUSE THEIR TRADITIONAL DIET, THE MARINE ANIMALS THAT PROVIDE THAT, ARE DISAPPEARING.]

Dr Poloczanska, of
the University of Queensland, and 18 international colleagues found no
doubt about who was responsible for the greenhouse gas-related warming
of the ocean's upper layers. "Global responses of marine species
revealed here demonstrate a strong fingerprint of this anthropogenic
[caused by humans] climate change on marine life," the paper said.Dr
Poloczanska said in Australia's south-east, tropical and subtropical
species of fish, molluscs and plankton were shifting much further south
through the Tasman Sea.

A 2010 CSIRO study found that warm surf-zone species such as silver
drummer were more abundant, while the range of others such as snapper
and rock flathead has increased.

In the Indian Ocean, a southward
distribution of seabirds has been detected, as well as a loss of
cool-water seaweeds north of Perth. The latest study assembled a
data base of 1735 marine biological responses around the world, where
climate change was considered to be a driver in species movement.

"The leading edge or 'front line' of a marine species distribution is
moving towards the poles at the average rate of 72 kilometres per
decade," Dr Poloczanska said. "This is considerably faster than
terrestrial species moving poleward at an average of six kilometres per
decade . . . despite sea-surface temperatures warming three times slower
than land temperatures."

BUT WHY IS THIS HAPPENING WORLDWIDE? WHY ARE MARINE ANIMALS MOVING AWAY FASTER THAN LAND ANIMALS?IF THE OCEANS ARE WARMING SO LITTLE, WHAT ELSE CAN BE DRIVING THE MARINE CREATURES' MOVEMENT?THE NORTH ATLANTIC OSCILLATION HAS ALSO CHANGED.THAT STUDY CAN BE HAD IN PDF FORM, COMPLETE WITH MAPS, AT:

Scientists expect climate change and warmer oceans to push the fish
that people rely on for food and income into new territory.

Predictions
of where and when species will relocate, however, are based on broad
expectations about how animals will move and have often not played out
in nature.

New research based at Princeton University shows that the
trick to more precise forecasts is to follow local temperature changes.

The researchers report in the journal Science the first evidence that
sea creatures consistently keep pace with "climate velocity," or the
speed and direction in which changes such as ocean temperature move.

They compiled 43 years of data related to the movement of 128 million
animals from 360 species living around North America, including
commercial staples such as lobster, shrimp and cod. They found that 70
percent of shifts in animals' depth and 74 percent of changes in
latitude correlated with regional-scale fluctuations in ocean
temperature.

Shifts in the animals' depth and latitude correlated with regional-scale
fluctuations in ocean temperature. On average, changes in temperature
moved north at 4.5 miles per decade and species shifted an average of 5
miles north per decade. But species-specific movements varied greatly.

For example, lobster in the northeastern United States (above) moved
north at a pace of 43 miles per decade. Nearly half of all species
studied moved south.(Video by Leah Lewis and D. Richardson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)The researchers compiled survey data collected from 1968 to 2011 by
American and Canadian fishery-research centers and government panels.

The surveys recorded surface and bottom temperatures, as well as the
complete mass of animals in nine areas central to North American
fisheries: the Aleutian Islands; the eastern Bering Sea; the Gulf of
Alaska; the West Coast from Washington to California; the Gulf Coast
from Louisiana to Mexico; the Northeast coast from North Carolina to
Maine; the coast of Nova Scotia; the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence; and
the Atlantic Ocean east of Newfoundland.

Details of the surveys revealed that sea creatures adhere to a
"complex mosaic of local climate velocities," the researchers reported.

On average, changes in temperature for North America moved north a mere
4.5 miles per decade, but in parts of Newfoundland that pace was a
speedier 38 miles north per decade. In areas off the U.S. West Coast,
temperatures shifted south at 30 miles per decade, while in the Gulf of
Mexico velocities varied from 19 miles south to 11 miles north per
decade.Animal movements were just as motley.

As a whole, species shifted an
average of 5 miles north per decade, but 45 percent of animal specific
populations swam south. Cod off Newfoundland moved 37 miles north per
decade, while lobster in the northeastern United States went the same
direction at 43 miles per decade.

On the other hand, pink shrimp, a
staple of Gulf Coast fisheries, migrated south 41 miles per decade, the
researchers found.WHAT FOLLOWS REALLY FLIES IN THE FACE OF WHAT SOME "EXPERTS" HAVE BEEN TELLING US ABOUT OUR AMERICAN WEST COAST...THE "WARM WATER IS KILLING SEA LIFE" GETS BLOWN TO BITS BY THIS:

Regional factors such as wind can actually counteract warmer water
and result in cooler seas, as is the case off the coasts of California
and Peru, Pauly said.

In addition, fish are extremely sensitive to even
slight temperature changes and will quickly seek ideal locales, which
can appear like erratic shifts in distribution.Large-scale models based
on global averages don't reflect these nuances.

Yet, Pauly said, the researchers also validate larger models by
showing that their inconsistencies are due to small-scale variations,
and not to a problem with the models as a whole.

Writ large, marine
species will seek cooler water and in many cases gradually move away
from their traditional territory.

"It validates the whole concept of linking the physiology of fish
with water temperature and its patterns," Pauly said. "At the end of the
day, the overall temperature of the ocean changes. You can have local
temperature resistance against the overall pattern, but not for long
and not everywhere."The researchers found that 74 percent of the animals studied changed
latitude (A and B) and 70 percent moved to new depths (C and D) in
accordance with changes in bottom and surface temperature. An idea first proposed in 2009, climate velocity explains why as many
as 60 percent of land and sea species have deviated from the
expectation that rising global temperatures would drive animals toward
cooler high latitudes and elevations, or deeper waters, the researchers
report.

Instead, animals follow local temperatures, which over the
next few decades may warm or cool even as global temperatures overall
are rising, Pinsky said.In the case of ocean temperatures, the march of balmy tides depends
on currents, changes in the atmosphere, and geological features on the
shore and in the ocean.

The temperatures that species prefer tend to
move toward the poles, but not as a single wave. In some cases, local
changes in water temperature move away from the poles, or to deep
water.

As a result, the researchers found that 73 percent of animals
that moved south and 75 percent that relocated to shallower waters
were following temperature changes.The paper, "Marine Taxa Track Local Climate Velocities," was published Sept. 13, 2013 by Science. In the Marine Environment ON TO THE ARCTIC ANIMALS AND THE INDIGENOUS TRIBES' DILEMMA.Many arctic communities depend on hunting polar bear, walrus, seals, whales, seabirds, and other marine animals.[FEW AMERICANS UNDERSTAND A TRIBE'S CONNECTION TO THE LAND. IT'S AS THOUGH THE TWO ARE ONE. THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS WHOSE LIVES ABSOLUTELY DEPEND ON LOCAL WILDLIFE FOR FOOD.WHEN THAT IS DISRUPTED, AN ENTIRE CULTURE, AN ANCIENT WAY OF LIFE IS ENDANGERED, AS MUCH SO AS ARE THE SPECIES THEY NEED TO LIVE.]Changes in the species'
ranges and availability, and the decreased ability to travel safely in
changing and unpredictable ice conditions are making people feel like
strangers in their own land.

Some societal changes have increased
vulnerability to climate-induced changes.

For example, over recent
decades, many Inuit
hunters have switched from dog sleds to snowmobiles, and while dogs
could sense dangerous ice conditions, snowmobiles cannot. (On the other
hand, snowmobiles allow people to hunt over larger areas and to
transport bigger loads.)

In addition, people are no longer nomadic,
following animals' seasonal movements. Because people now live in
permanent settlements, their ability to adapt to changing climatic
conditions and/or animal availability by moving has been greatly
reduced.

More than half of the Arctic region
is comprised of ocean. Many arctic life forms rely on productivity from
the sea, which is highly climate-dependent. Climate variations have
profound influences on marine animals. For example, the climate-related
collapse of capelin in the Barents Sea in 1987 had a devastating effect
on seabirds that breed in the area.

And years with little or no ice in
the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Canada (1967, 1981, 2000, 2001, 2002)
resulted in years with virtually no surviving seal pups, when in other
years, these numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

POLAR BEARSPolar bears are unlikely to survive as a species
if there is an almost complete loss of summer sea-ice cover, which is
projected to occur before the end of this century by some climate
models.

The only foreseeable option that polar bears would have is to
adapt to a land-based summer lifestyle, but competition, risk of
hybridization with brown and grizzly bears, and increased human
interactions would then present additional threats to their survival as a
species. The loss of polar bears is likely to have significant and
rapid consequences for the ecosystems that they currently occupy.

The increase in environmental stress on polar bears caused by climate change interacts with the stresses caused by chemical contaminants. Polar bears, at the top of the marine food chain,
accumulate contaminants in their fat by eating ringed seals and other
marine mammals who have absorbed the chemicals by eating contaminated species
lower on the food chain.

High levels of chlorinated compounds and heavy
metals have been found in polar bears. In some cases, contaminants may
be stored in fat, keeping the chemicals from affecting the bears' health
when fat reserves are high.But during a poor feeding season, when the
fat reserves must be used, the chemicals are released into the body.

Polar bears in some areas of the Arctic have been observed to have less
fat reserves in recent decades as sea ice breakup occurs progressively earlier, forcing them ashore where they are required to fast for increasingly longer periods.ARCTIC SEALS

Ice-dependent seals, including the ringed seal, ribbon seal, and bearded seal, are particularly vulnerable to the observed and projected reductions in arctic sea ice
because they give birth to and nurse their pups on the ice and use it
as a resting platform. They also forage near the ice edge and under the
ice. Ringed seals are likely to be the most highly affected species
of seal because all aspects of their lives are tied to sea ice. They
require sufficient snow cover to construct lairs and the sea ice must be
stable enough in the spring to successfully rear young. Earlier ice break-up could result in premature separation of mothers and pups, leading to higher death rates among newborns.

Adapting to life on land in the absence of summer sea ice
seems highly unlikely for the ringed seal as they rarely, if ever, come
onto land. Hauling themselves out on land to rest would be a dramatic
change to the species'
behavior. Giving birth to their pups on land would expose newborns to a
much higher risk of being killed by predators. Other ice-dependent
seals that are likely to suffer as sea ice declines include the spotted
seal, which breeds exclusively at the ice edge in the Bering Sea in
spring, and the harp seal, which lives associated with sea ice all year.

Unlike these ice-associated seal species, harbour seals and grey seals
are more temperate species with sufficiently broad niches that they are
likely to expand their ranges in an Arctic that has less ice coverage.

SEABIRDS Some seabirds such as ivory gulls and little auks are very likely to be negatively impacted by the decline of sea ice and subsequent changes to the communities
in which they live. The ivory gull is intimately associated with sea
ice for most of its life, nesting and breeding on rocky cliffs that
offer protection from predators, and flying to the nearby sea ice to
fish through cracks in the ice and scavenge on top of the ice. As the
sea ice edge retreats further and further from suitable coastal nesting
sites, serious consequences are very likely to result.

Major declines
have already been observed in ivory gull populations, including an estimated 90% reduction in Canada over the past 20 years.

WALRUSES The ice edge is an extremely productive area and is very sensitive to climate change. The most productive areas are nearest the coasts, over the continental shelves. As sea ice
retreats farther from the shorelines, the marine system will lose some
of its most productive areas. For walrus in many areas, the ice edge
provides the ideal location for resting and feeding because walrus are
bottom feeders that eat clams and other shellfish on the continental
shelves. As the ice edge retreats away from the shelves to deeper areas,
there will be no clams nearby. Walrus also normally travel long
distances on floating ice, allowing them to feed over a wide area

ICE ALGAE AND THE ARCTIC FOOD WEB

The vast reduction in multiyear ice in the Arctic Ocean is likely to be
immensely disruptive to microscopic life forms associated with the ice,
as they will lack a permanent habitat. Research in the Beaufort Sea suggests that ice algae at the base of the marine food web
may have already been profoundly affected by warming over the last few
decades.

Results indicate that most of the larger marine algae under the
ice at this site died out between the 1970s and the late 1990s, and
were replaced by less-productive species of algae usually associated with freshwater.

Researchers say that this is likely to be related to the fact that
melting has formed a 30-meter thick layer of relatively fresh water
below the remaining ice, one third deeper than it was 20 years before.

Among the areas likely to be most severely affected by such changes will
be the Bering Sea and Hudson Bay, in the lower Arctic, where sea ice
is already disappearing earlier in spring and forming later in the
autumn. As the Arctic continues to warm, sea ice will melt rapidly in
the spring over continental shelf areas and withdraw toward the deep
ocean of the central Arctic.

ARCTIC FISHERIES

Arctic marine fisheries
provide an important food source globally, and a vital part of the
economy of the region.

Because they are largely controlled by factors
such as local weather conditions, ecosystem dynamics, and management decisions, projecting the impacts of climate change on marine fish stocks
is problematic.

There is some chance that climate change will induce
major ecosystem shifts in some areas that would result in radical
changes in species
composition with unknown consequences.

Barring such shifts, moderate
warming is likely to improve conditions for some important fish stocks such as cod and herring, as higher temperatures and reduced ice cover could possibly increase productivity of their prey and provide more extensive habitat.LAND ANIMALS IN THE ARCTIC

Arctic animals on land include small plant-eaters like ground
squirrels, hares, lemmings, and voles; large plant-eaters like moose,
caribou/reindeer, and musk ox; and meat-eaters like weasels, wolverine,
wolf, fox, bear, and birds of prey.

Climate-related changes are likely to cause cascading impacts involving many species of plants and animals. Compared to ecosystems
in warmer regions, arctic systems generally have fewer species filling
similar roles. Thus when arctic species are displaced, there can be
important implications for species that depend upon them. For example,
mosses and lichens are particularly vulnerable
to warming. Because these plants form the base of important food
chains, providing primary winter food sources for reindeer/caribou and
other species, their decline will have far-reaching impacts throughout
the ecosystem.

A decline in reindeer and caribou populations
will affect species that hunt them (including wolves, wolverines, and
people) as well as species that scavenge on them (such as arctic foxes
and various birds). Because some local communities are particularly dependent on reindeer/caribou, their well-being will also be affected.OTHER RISKS Climate change poses risks to arctic marine mammals and some seabirds beyond the loss of habitat
and forage bases.

These include increased risk of disease due to a
warmer climate, increased pollution impacts as rising precipitation
brings more atmospheric and river-borne pollution northward, increased competition as temperate species
expand their ranges northward, and impacts due to increased human
traffic and development in previously inaccessible, ice-covered areas.WE MUST BE UNSATISFIED WITH ALL THESE STUDIES.THEY JUST DON'T UNCOVER THE CAUSE, MERELY LEAVE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.

THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY SHOULD BE, MANY SPECIES ARE BEHAVING ODDLY, WE SEE EXTREME SPECIES LOSS THAT IS NOT EXPLAINED BY DATA GATHERED SO FAR.

ONE THING THE TEA ROOM HAS TAKEN AWAY FROM LOOKING AT ALL THIS FOR A COUPLE DAYS NOW IS THAT RADIATION LEVELS CANNOT BE THE "END-ALL" CAUSAL FACTOR IN EITHER SPECIES DIE-OFFS OR SPECIES MIGRATION AND CHANGE OF HABITAT.

WHILE THERE IS, WITHOUT A DOUBT, A RISE IN RADIATION LEVELS IN THE TISSUES OF MANY MARINE SPECIES, THE PATTERN OF LOSS PRECEDES THE FUKUSHIMA EVENT.

THERE IS, THERE MUST BE, SOMETHING MORE, SOMETHING WE JUST HAVE NOT DISCOVERED YET.

WHETHER THAT COMES FROM THE DEEPEST RECESSES OF OUR OCEANS OR FROM ABOVE, WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW.

THAT THE SMALL RISE IN OCEAN TEMPERATURES CAN BE CANCELLED BY LOCAL WATER CURRENTS, LOCAL ANYTHING, NEGATES THAT THEORY OF "CLIMATE CHANGE", AT LEAST IN MY MIND, SINCE WE'VE SEEN MARINE LIFE ADJUST QUITE WELL TO RISE AND FALL IN TEMPS HISTORICALLY AND HAVE NOT SEEN THE MASS DIE-OFFS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST 5 YEARS.

WE'LL JUST HAVE TO LOOK FURTHER UNTIL WE FIND THE REASON.

PERHAPS THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THE ARCTIC AND THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SHOULD BE LISTENED TO MORE CLOSELY.WE MIGHT LEARN MORE BY GOING STRAIGHT TO THOSE MOST AFFECTED BY ALL THIS "CHANGE".THEIR SKY HAS CHANGED

Inuit knowledge and climate change was discussed by delegates at the recent global warming summit in Copenhagen and what the Eskimo elders
are saying have NASA, scientists and experts alike worried....Global
warming might not be the whole story!
It seems the Inuit elders are also witnessing strange and unfathomable weather up there in the North.
The elders talk about how their world has changed, how it was then and how it is now.
It is a worrying picture, a picture of melting glaciers and thinning or disappearing sea ice.
Seals with burns on their coats and covered with sores and a thinner
hide, the Seal skin has deteriorated and while scientists maintain man
made pollution is contributing to climate change the elders are
convinced something much much bigger is going on!
Astonishingly what the elders are saying is global warming is not the whole story...

The elders maintain the Sun doesn't rise were it used too, they have
longer day light to hunt and the Sun is higher than it used to be and
warms up quicker than before.
The elders who were interviewed across the north all said the same thing, their sky has changed.
The stars the Sun and the Moon have all changed affecting the
temperature, even affecting the way the wind blows, it is becoming
increasingly hard to predict the weather, something that is a must on
the Arctic.

The elders all agree, they believe the Earth has shifted, wobbled or tilted to the North.

Exploring centuries of Inuit knowledge, allowing the viewer to learn
about climate change first-hand from Arctic residents themselves, the
film portrays Inuit as experts regarding their land and wildlife and
makes it clear that climate change is a human rights issue affecting
this ingenious Indigenous culture. Hear stories about Arctic melting and
how Inuit believe that human and animal intelligence are key to
adaptability and survival in a warming world.

THE TEA ROOM IS SICK OF HEARING THAT OBAMA HAS DONE ANYTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN...HE HASN'T.

HE PICKED UP WHERE BUSH LEFT OFF AND SIMPLY 'EXPANDED' ON THAT, BUT SINCE THE GOP MIND SEEMS UNABLE TO RECALL WHAT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS AND/OR CANDIDATES DID OR SAID, LET'S JUST GO GET SOME FACTS THAT ANYONE CAPABLE OF READING AT AN EIGHT GRADE LEVEL CAN FIND FOR THEMSELVES.

1~ LOWER UNEMPLOYMENT, CREATE MORE JOBS.“I can tell you that over a period of four years, by virtue of the
policies that we’d put in place, we’d get the unemployment rate down to 6
percent, and perhaps a little lower.”—Mitt Romney, May 23, 2012.

YEAH, OLD MITTENS ROMULUS...Mitt Romney’s vow to reduce unemployment to 6 percent by the end of his
first term in office was almost universally hailed as bold and
ambitious.

While Republicans block President Obama‘s plan to create 1.9 million jobs in ONE year, Perry’s plan promised those 1.25 million jobs…in 19 years.

2~ STRENGTHEN MEDICARE?THAT'S WHAT THE GOP WAS SELLING IN 2012.

“Mitt Romney and I will protect and
strengthen Medicare so that the promises that were made that people
organize their retirements around, like my mom, will be promises that
are kept.”—Paul Ryan, August 19, 2012

There’s GREAT reason to doubt that Rep. Ryan (R-WI) was sincere when he promised to protect Medicare, given that he has repeatedly proposed plans to end the program as we know it.

The liar aid that because it sounded good, some fell for it, but Mittens and the Abe Lincoln look-alike lost.

3~ THE GOP PROMISE TO LOWER GAS PRICES...ha ha ha ha ha....“I’ve developed a program for
American energy so no future president will ever bow to a Saudi king
again and so every American can look forward to $2.50-a-gallon
gasoline.”—Newt Gingrich, February 22, 2012.

By Gingrich’s standards, President Obama has been stunningly
successful: The national average gas price is now $2.32 per gallon (THIS WAS IN 2014),
marking the lowest level since May 2009.

Of course, gas prices have
tumbled due to a wide range of factors, few of which involve Obama — but none of which involved bowing to a Saudi king.

“Well, if China can have 5 percent
growth, and India can have 5 percent growth, and Brazil can have 5
percent growth, the United States of America can have 5 percent growth”—Tim Pawlenty, June 18, 2011

As Politico reported at the time, forgettable 2012 candidate
Tim Pawlenty’s pledge to spur 5 percent GDP growth was “mocked by some
economists and Republican critics as unachievable in a country this
large.”

[Be brave, follow the links.]But thankfully for the GOP, with President Obama and Democrats blocking budget-busting proposals like Paul Ryan’s tax plan, the deficit has steadily dropped throughout Obama’s presidency.

"The New Freedom Initiative is a plan to screen the entire U.S.
population for mental illness and to provide a cradle-to-grave continuum
of services for those identified as either mentally ill or at risk of becoming
so. Under the plan, schools would become hubs of the screening process – not
only for children but for their parents and teachers. There are even components
aimed at senior citizens, pregnant women, and new mothers.

"In April 2002, President Bush established the New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health to conduct a ‘comprehensive study of the United States
mental health service delivery system.’ The commission issued its
recommendations in July 2003, chief among them being that schools are in a ‘key
position’ to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at
educational facilities."

"Eli Lilly has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush,
Sr., was a member of Lilly’s board of directors. Lilly made $1.6 million in
political contributions in 2000 – 82 percent of which went to George W. Bush
and the Republican Party. President Bush appointed Lilly’s chief executive
officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council.""On Sept. 9, 2004, the ‘Ron Paul Amendment’ was defeated in the House of
Representatives by a vote of 95-315. The Amendment would have prevented the
funds sought by an appropriations bill (HR 5006) from being used for the
mandatory mental-health screening of Americans, including public
schoolchildren."

118 GOP CONGRESSMEN PASSED THAT G.W. BUSH BILL.YOU CAN GO READ THEIR NAMES IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD FOR THAT VOTE OR SEE THE LIST <HERE>.JUST SCROLL DOWN A BIT ON THAT PAGE.

Republican congressmen have called OBAMA “lawless” and accused him of
“shredding the Constitution,” calling it an “unprecedented” usurpation
of congressional authority. There have even been calls for impeachment if he acts unilaterally on immigration.

But is it unprecedented?

The answer is a resounding “no.” It was
done by two of the previous three presidents with no one calling for
impeachment.In 1986, Congress passed and Ronald Reagan
signed into law sweeping immigration reform which was immediately
recognized as being flawed with provisions that would divide families,
deporting some while members of the same family would be allowed to
stay.

In 1987 when Congress failed to amend the law, Reagan acted through
the INS to allow the minor children and spouses of those who were
granted amnesty by the new law to stay in the country — and there was
not one peep about impeachment or lawless behavior by the president.

In 1989 the Senate passed a measure that would have allowed those
covered by the executive action to stay with an 81-17 vote and the House
failed to act on it.

In February of 1990, President George H.W. Bush acting through the
INS, granted “family fairness” which allowed up to 1.5 million family
members of immigrants who benefited from the 1986 law to stay without
fear of deportation and work in the U.S.

Once again there was no uproar
and in October of that year, Congress passed another immigration reform
law making their status permanent.

"The Heritage Foundation, the granddaddy of the right-wing think tanks,
fumed when President Barack Obama said it was the source of the concept
of the health insurance marketplaces where people could shop for the
best deal. (We rated Obama's claim Mostly True.)

Is the Affordable Care Act really the same as "the Republican plan in the early '90s?"Short answer -- sort of. There was a Republican bill in the Senate
that looked a whole lot like Obamacare, but it wasn’t the only GOP bill
on Capitol Hill...

Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man.

The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today,
(yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s
who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-
Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard
Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic
co-sponsors.

Among other features, the Chafee bill included:

An individual mandate;

Creation of purchasing pools;

Standardized benefits;

Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;

A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

"You would find a great deal of similarity to provisions in the
Affordable Care Act," Sheila Burke, Dole’s chief of staff in 1993, told
PunditFact via email. "The guys were way ahead of the times!"BUT THAT WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME REPUBLICANS TRIED TO REFORM HEALTH CARE.In April 1970, Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) introduced a bill to extend Medicare to all—retaining existing Medicare cost sharing and coverage limits—developed after consultation with Governor Nelson Rockefeller (R-NY) and former Johnson administration HEW Secretary Wilbur Cohen.

NOOOO!NOT MANDATED HEALTH CARE, NOT MEDICAID FOR THE POOR!NOT MEDICAID FOR ALL POOR CHILDREN!BELIEVE IT, IT HAPPENED.

During the 2004 presidential election, both the George Bush and John Kerry
campaigns offered health care proposals. Bush's proposals for expanding
health care coverage were more modest than those advanced by Senator
Kerry.

Several estimates were made comparing the cost and impact of the Bush
and Kerry proposals. While the estimates varied, they all indicated that
the increase in coverage and the funding requirements of the Bush plan
would both be lower than those of the more comprehensive Kerry plan.

John McCain's
2008 campaign proposals focused on open-market competition rather than government
funding. At the heart of his plan were tax credits - $2,500 for
individuals and $5,000 for families who do not subscribe to or do not
have access to health care through their employer. To help people who
are denied coverage by insurance companies due to pre-existing
conditions, McCain proposed working with states to create what he called
a "Guaranteed Access Plan.

I
AM DEEPLY SORRY TO HAVE SEEN THOSE GUYS DIE, BUT, (A) THE CIA WAS
ILLEGALLY INTERROGATING PRISONERS THERE AND (B) THEY WERE GUN-RUNNING TO OUR CHOSEN "REBELS" OUT OF THAT COMPLEX.

THE CIA WAS AS MUCH TO BLAME FOR BENGHAZI AS OBAMA.

THE CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY OF THE MILITARY IS A MATTER OF RECORD.THE MILITARY SAID THERE WAS NO STAND-DOWN ORDER FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE MILITARY WAS PLENTY PISSED AFTER REAGAN'S MISTAKES, HOWEVER.AND
THEN, COMPARATIVELY, AS TO BODY-COUNT AND BEING STUPID, REAGAN'S
REPEATED SCREW-UPS AT AMERICAN EMBASSIES TOPPED BENGHAZI MANY TIMES
OVER.

WHO FUNDED THE GROUP WE KNOW NOW AS THE THE TALIBAN, WHICH WE'RE TOLD BECAME "AL QAEDA", CALLED THEM "FREEDOM FIGHTERS", DEDICATED A SHUTTLE LAUNCH TO THEM, ARMED THEM?REAGAN.

LOOK AGAIN AT THE PICS OF BUSH SMOOCHING THE SAUDI MONARCH...IT DOESN'T GET MORE "MUSLIM-LOVING" THAN THAT, FOLKS.

AND IT WAS BUSH WHO SAID ISLAM WAS A RELIGION OF PEACE, ETC, IN CASE YOU FORGOT.

HE SAID MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS SERVE THE SAME GOD... HOW SWEET IS THAT SENTIMENT?(COUGH, COUGH, ACKK)WELL, HANG ON, OLD 'PUBLICAN JOHN KERRY MAY HAVE KISSED CONSIDERABLE IRANIAN BUTT, AND JORDANIAN BUTT, AND SEVERAL, SEVERAL OTHER 'MUSLIM' BEHINDS ACTUALLY, RIGHT?THAT'S WORSE THAN MOUTH-TO-MOUTH, HAND-HOLDING AND SWORD DANCING WITH THE SAUDIS, MAYBE?

OR THREE WORDS... "CRASH OF 2008".THERE WAS ANOTHER CRASH, 2000-2001... THE DOT-COM FINANCIAL FIASCO, LEST WE FORGET."When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he
left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion,
almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said.
You can check out all these numbers for yourself via the
Treasury Department's debt history search application
.
"

WILL OBAMA TOP BUSH'S BAD SHOWING?CERTAINLY.

THAT WON'T BE A NEW THING EITHER.JUST LOOK BACK AT THE TREASURY DEPT. STATS, SEE THE FACTS.

NOTHING NEW HAS COME OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE IN OVER 100 YEARS, PEOPLE.

SAME CRIMES, DIFFERENT NAMES OF THE CRIMINALS IN THE OVAL OFFICE, THAT'S ALL.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH PARTY IS IN POWER, WHICH CANDIDATE GETS ELECTED, NOTHING NEW HAPPENS...IT'S JUST A SICK, DUMB, SENSELESS REPEAT OF WHAT OTHERS DID OR TRIED TO DO.

MAYBE SOME DAY, JUST MAYBE, BOTH YOU GOP AND DEMO FOLKS WILL COMPREHEND THIS FACT.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE DEMOCRATS?NAMES AND LOGOS, THE END.FACTS....GET SOME...THEY'RE FREE...JUST GO READ.JUST GO LOOK.YOU CAN FIND THEM!

MAN-UP, AMERICA!PUT ON YOUR BIG BOY/BIG GIRL UNDERWEAR.ALL POLITICIANS ARE CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH, NONE ARE EVER GOING TO DO SOMETHING UNIQUE OR DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE.WHOEVER SITS IN THAT OVAL OFFICE IS A LOUSY PUPPET, A PRETEND KING...IT'S A JOKE...ON US.